Challenge for atheists/ atheist position

[Spiritual Ascendancy]

The question I have, is, why are my specific beliefs necessary in order for you to refute them; because, you are making the claim, /implicit claim/, that my beliefs are incorrect./by inference from 'theism/ Hence, shouldn't you be able to refute them? If you can't refute my beliefs, then why are you claiming that they are incorrect?

Becuase otherwise we have to prove every single form of theism incorrect in one answer. Which is not feasible. Give us some examples and then we will debunk them.

Or are you to afriad of them being debunked.

 

[Spiritual Ascendancy]

Evidence is ALSO that which convinces someone of something.
So yes, they have evidence for god.

the problem is that you want objective empirical evidence for god.
Please notice the conditional modifiers.



As written this is flat out wrong.
You may disagree with their evidence, but your disagreeing with it does not make it disappear.


There has been all manner of evidence presented on Religious Forums in support of the existence of several different gods.
That you disagree with said evidence does not make said evidence disappear.


I don't know, would it?

Evidance is Objective, something that is subjective is not evidence.

Please show me their evidance that has been shown? I would honestly love to see it.

 

[McBell]

Evidance is Objective, something that is subjective is not evidence.

Please show me their evidance that has been shown? I would honestly love to see it.

Evidence is anything that convinces someone of something.

Which means that not all evidence is objective.
Not all evidence is empirical.
Not all evidence is objective empirical evidence.

Now if you are wanting objective empirical evidence, you should specify the kind of evidence you want.
Why?
Because evidence is anything that convinces someone of something.

I honestly do not understand why it is so many people have such a difficult time understanding this.

 

[McBell]

Becuase our argument is that you do not have a reason to beilive in a god.

That may be YOUR "argument", but it is not any argument I would embarrass myself with.

If you had a good reason backed by evidance then I would beilive in this deity.

Interesting how you claim evidence must be objective yet also require a subjective reason...
Seems you are not as consistent and forthright as you would like everyone to think?

 

[Curious George]

I find it interesting so far that no one has attempted to answer it.

I will provide one, I see no problem with the question...But I will have to have time to sit and write a lengthy post

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find it interesting so far that no one has attempted to answer it.

And I find it interesting that you think nobody has attempted to answer it.

This thread has post after post of people saying things like "what you're asking for depends on the specifics of your beliefs; what are they?" I even gave a bit of a run-down of different directions we could go from here ("if you believe X, this would be my approach. If you believe Y, this would be my approach.", etc.).

 

[Robert.Evans]

You just said that Dawkins had a RELIGOUS ministry.......

Anything that you put sufficient emphasis on is a religion and considering he has attacked other religions, preaches etc, what is he doing different to they? Can he prove that there gods are wrong or that luck is right? How is he different.
But if you don't agree, then fine.

 

[Demonslayer]

Because evidence is anything that convinces someone of something.

I honestly do not understand why it is so many people have such a difficult time understanding this.

The reason people don't accept this definition is because it renders the word "evidence" meaningless. You're essentially watering down the word evidence to mean nothing more than belief. Anything anyone believes in evidence.

Let me take it from another angle. Are you comfortable with this sentence:

"Black skin is evidence of laziness."

You'd agree with that sentence? ? After all, anything anywhere that convinces anyone of anything is "evidence" right? And you know there are a lot of bigots out there who will tell you black people are lazy. You're comfortable with calling black skin "evidence" of laziness, just because some a*sholes may associate the two things?

 

[Robert.Evans]

The reason people don't accept this definition is because it renders the word "evidence" meaningless. You're essentially watering down the word evidence to mean nothing more than belief. Anything anyone believes in evidence.

Let me take it from another angle. Are you comfortable with this sentence:

"Black skin is evidence of laziness."

You'd agree with that sentence? ? After all, anything anywhere that convinces anyone of anything is "evidence" right? And you know there are a lot of bigots out there who will tell you black people are lazy. You're comfortable with calling black skin "evidence" of laziness, just because some a*sholes may associate the two things?

Without getting too personal, it would be if you lived in a society where that could seen to be true. But if you're just pulling it out of your hat, then no.

 

[Yorutenchi]

So, your saying that you are not claiming that theism is necessarily a false position?

Depends. Vague concept of "god" with no definitions is technically possible. I don't believe it and I don't think that you have a tenable reason to believe it either. I say very forwardly that I do believe Christainity, Islam, Judaism, HInduism and most other major religions are false. I do have a belief in the negative of those.

This is what I am referring to; as in, why would this matter for your argument?

I cannot define for you your own position to argue against.

If I tell you to argue against my position on something but I don't tell you exactly what that something is then you can't do it can you?

If you ask for why it is that I don't believe in god it is mostly to do with the lack of evidence found and the fact that we can see the "evolution" of religions throughout the world and time.

 

[Demonslayer]

Without getting too personal, it would be if you lived in a society where that could seen to be true. But if you're just pulling it out of your hat, then no.

What I'm trying to point out is that this ridiculously broad definition of the word "evidence" some of you are using completely renders the word useless. A racist thinks black people are lazy, therefore the racist has evidence of such? The Baby Doe killer thought the baby was possessed by a demon, therefor he had evidence that the baby was possessed?

All evidence means in this case is that you thought something. Everything you think can't be evidence or the word means nothing.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What I'm trying to point out is that this ridiculously broad definition of the word "evidence" some of you are using completely renders the word useless. A racist thinks black people are lazy, therefore the racist has evidence of such? The Baby Doe killer thought the baby was possessed by a demon, therefor he had evidence that the baby was possessed?

All evidence means in this case is that you thought something. Everything you think can't be evidence or the word means nothing.

It would be evidence they would put forward. It would be up to the individual to decide whether they thought it relevant or not.
And faith is evidence as it shows the proof within. You are, of course, free to not believe that.

 

[Yorutenchi]

It would be evidence they would put forward. It would be up to the individual to decide whether they thought it relevant or not.
And faith is evidence as it shows the proof within. You are, of course, free to not believe that.

Evidence must always be relevant. Your definition is no different than definition of opinion.

 

[Demonslayer]

It would be evidence they would put forward. It would be up to the individual to decide whether they thought it relevant or not.
And faith is evidence as it shows the proof within. You are, of course, free to not believe that.

I'm sorry, evidence doesn't just mean anything anyone feels. You guys are stretching it. Word have meanings, please show me a definition of evidence that says "anything anyone thinks is evidence."

I say bananas cure cancer, and the evidence is that I think bananas cure cancer. You really agree with that? It's incredible the mental gymnastics religious people will resort to.

I'm not saying anything about your faith, you're more than welcome to think whatever you want. I reject the idea that you can hijack a work like evidence just because you want to try to make your beliefs sound like something more concrete than they are.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Evidence must always be relevant. Your definition is no different than definition of opinion.

The definition, and therfore mine, is that anything that leads one to a conclusion or judgement about something is evidence. That evidence does not have to be accepted however. that is why it is called evidence and not proof. God proves, man gives evidence.

 

[Demonslayer]

Evidence must always be relevant. Your definition is no different than definition of opinion.

This. Why not just bastardize the word proof in the same way? Black skin is proof a person is lazy. Black skin is neither proof nor evidence of laziness, despite the gut feelings of some bigots. Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves for agreeing to this.

There has to be SOME connection to use the word evidence. I'm not saying all evidence has to be empirical evidence. We have statisical evidence, circumstantial evidence, anecdotal evidence...but no definition of evidence is "whatever the hell you think is evidence."

 

[Yorutenchi]

The definition, and therfore mine, is that anything that leads one to a conclusion or judgement about something is evidence. That evidence does not have to be accepted however. that is why it is called evidence and not proof. God proves, man gives evidence.

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Evidence isn't evidence unless it is backed by something. What you describe is pure opinion based. I would agree with your definition if everyone tackled these things logically. But people do not. Most time people do tackle these things with bias and personal opinion. So even if something isn't evidence they will believe it anyway.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm sorry, evidence doesn't just mean anything anyone feels. You guys are stretching it. Word have meanings, please show me a definition of evidence that says "anything anyone thinks is evidence."

I say bananas cure cancer, and the evidence is that I think bananas cure cancer. You really agree with that? It's incredible the mental gymnastics religious people will resort to.

I'm not saying anything about your faith, you're more than welcome to think whatever you want. I reject the idea that you can hijack a work like evidence just because you want to try to make your beliefs sound like something more concrete than they are.

I think you are making too much out of this.
If someone says that bananas cure cancer that would be a statement that then would require evidence. Evidence is what I can give you about God. Proof i cannot. That comes from God. I don't see what is so difficult to understand.

Your first example was a black man. That presumably would be backed up with something such as perhaps all the people he knows are like that. Therefore it is evidence. Clearly if mroe evidence was given, that the rest of the black race were all angels, then one could make a different opinion.

I don't think anyone is saying that just saying an opinion is evidence. That would be an opinion. Least, I have not seen it. Either I missed it or you're reading it in

 

[Demonslayer]

The definition, and therfore mine, is that anything that leads one to a conclusion or judgement about something is evidence.

You don't get to define what words mean. Words have independent meanings. In your own la-la land you can think what you want, but in real life if you try to tell people evidence is any old thing you think, people will think your daft.

 

[Robert.Evans]

This. Why not just bastardize the word proof in the same way? Black skin is proof a person is lazy. Black skin is neither proof nor evidence of laziness, despite the gut feelings of some bigots. Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves for agreeing to this.

There has to be SOME connection to use the word evidence. I'm not saying all evidence has to be empirical evidence. We have statisical evidence, circumstantial evidence, anecdotal evidence...but no definition of evidence is "whatever the hell you think is evidence."

but witnesses statements etc are evidence. and that ultimately is opnion. That is why someone judges it. Whatever they saw or witnessed is still their opinion unless they filmed it